MINUTES
OF MEETING
PINE
TREE WATER CONTROL DISTRICT
The
regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the Pine Tree Water Control
District was held on
Present and constituting a quorum were:
David Rosenof President
Margaret Bertolami Vice
President
Paul Brewer Secretary
Mimi Bright Ribotsky Assistant
Secretary
Also present were:
John Petty Manager
D.J. Doody Attorney
Warren Craven Engineer
John McKune CH2M Hill
Alexis Yarbrough Tripp
Scott
Ken Knight Stiles
Landscape Company
Diane Yousefi
Daniel Urrutia Resident
Karen Olsen Resident
FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS Roll Call
Mr.
Rosenof called the meeting to order and Mr. Petty called the roll.
SECOND
ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval
of the Minutes of the June 1, 2006 Meeting
Mr.
Rosenof stated each Board member received a copy of the minutes of the
On
page eight, the third line down states, “Mr. Rosenof asked counsel?” Does anyone remember what I asked counsel?
Mr.
Doody responded I believe it was a general referral for my input regarding the
subject matter.
Mr.
Petty stated I suggest we strike it.
Mr.
Rosenof stated on the signature, it shows Ms. Rugg as Assistant Secretary. Should Mr. Brewer be listed to sign the
minutes? You usually have him listed.
Mr.
Petty responded we can have any Secretary or Assistant Secretary sign. She did this to make sure the documents went
through. She can sign for the Board if
we missed you at the end of the meeting.
Mr.
Rosenof stated I never saw it before.
Mr.
Petty stated it is an option we can put in.
On MOTION by Mr. Brewer seconded by Ms. Ribotsky with all in
favor the minutes of the
THIRD
ORDER OF BUSINESS Public
Hearing to Consider Adoption of the Budget for Fiscal Year 2007, Resolution
2006-4, and Levy of Non Ad Valorem Assessments, Resolution 2006-5
Mr.
Petty stated I would like to request the President call the public hearing to
order and then we will go over the items we changed for tonight’s meeting. The first meeting was a preliminary budget in
order to start these discussions. Since then,
actions by our sister district and considerations by this body in regard to
hurricane clean up have made us change numbers.
We would like to go over them with you.
You have the revised version. The
numbers have changed. Assessments are
projected to be double what they were last year, which was $81.87 per
unit. We expect them to be $145.90 per
unit.
Ms.
Bertolami asked do we need to re-advertise?
Mr.
Petty responded no. This is the public
hearing where we can take any and all comment.
We can change the budget as the Board feels will benefit the
District. Staff, residents, as well as
the Board can make comments on the budget and the Board considers all comments
to decide what is in the best interest of the District.
You
have a new item called debt service, which will pay for construction estimated
to be approximately $600,000 with a five year note. It is short term to keep it in the
maintenance fund. We have interest of approximately
$36,000. We figured this is the highest
level we will go for in a short term note.
We show it as a cost item, which was not in the first draft.
There
is another item called technology sharing under administration. It is a new item. It is based on your sister district, which
you have been using since your inception for the computer system and software
they have. It is currently AS400, which
is soon to be updated. Stream Software
is a relational database running your accounting package. They are looking at newer technology and are
pricing out the system, which appears to be $250,000. This is the amount they will bill you for
next year’s services.
Shared
personnel services we talked about at the last meeting. It is what you had in the past and is being
defined differently. The shared
personnel include Ms. Walker, Mr. Zilmer and Mr. Daly who represent finance,
human resources, customer service and accounting IT services. They have been in this building a long period
of time. They have always been utilized
by this District without a cost number shelved.
As CSID goes through its costs this year they are allocating to people
using it. This is what we previously discussed
in regard to PTWCD becoming more independent.
Electronic
document storage is the electronic filing system, which archives your documents
and makes it easier for us to search.
This is part of the function you have been involved with, which Ms. Rugg
has been doing for us. The next item is
administrative building costs, which is the rent we have in this building for
the personnel you are using. It is your
allocation of the use of this building.
Ms.
Ribotsky stated the City of
Mr.
Rosenof stated I believe he is saying it is for the personnel we are paying for
who need office space in this building.
This is our allocation. You have
five percent next to contingency. What
is it five percent of?
Mr.
Petty responded it is a matter of how you do your budget. It is my practice to not tell a Board I am
100% sure this is how the budget is going to play.
Mr.
Rosenof asked I understand, but it is five percent of what?
Mr.
Petty responded five percent of the total administrative category.
Mr.
Rosenof stated you have a $600,000 capital budget item. Where is the contingency for it?
Mr.
Petty responded there is not one. It is
a calculation of the amount where we went up to $600,000.
Mr.
Rosenof asked does $600,000 include its own contingency?
Mr.
Petty responded yes sir.
Mr.
Rosenof stated this is contingency for administrative personnel.
Mr.
Petty stated yes sir, for all of the line items under administrative. The next item is field operations. It is similar to last year other than we have
broken it out to your two field personnel who are your employees being shown
along with their associated costs. We
recommend they be enrolled in the
Mr.
Rosenof asked what are field supervisor services?
Mr.
Petty responded it is what you use to see before. It is Mr. Frederick. He is owned by CSID and they loan him out to
us for this fee.
Mr.
Rosenof asked where was this number shown before?
Mr.
Petty responded in previous years it was shown as shared personnel. You have salaries and wages, which are your
own people, and you have shared personnel, which use to be Mr. Frederick who
you share with CSID.
Mr.
Rosenof stated shared salaries and wages went down, but that went up.
Mr.
Petty stated the next item is culvert cleaning and inspection. We are proposing it go up when we look at the
work going down. We have culvert pipes
we are concerned about because you cannot see it. It fills up with debris and when a storm
comes you will not be able to handle the water you are designed to handle. We like to inspect our main pipes on a
regular basis for siltation and for any leaks.
It takes a diver to crawl up the pipe.
It is an industrial diver. In the
past we received good prices. In the
last couple of years these divers have been hit by OCIA. They are required to have over four divers in
the water for each inspection. The cost
has quadrupled. We are showing an
increase of $10,000 and we expect to do half of the work.
The
next item I want to bring to your attention is recharge water, which we are
doing through an Interlocal Agreement. We
are seeing bills on this item now.
Mr.
Rosenof asked did we not see bills for it before?
Mr.
Petty responded not for the first couple of years. We are now on a regular basis. Even though we allocated $10,000 per the
agreement, it is basically on whatever they need to pump. The next item going up is contingencies. It is five percent again. The same way as it is under
administration.
The
last item is reserves. We are utilizing
some of the reserves to offset the increase, but we kept $250,000 in the
line. It is $200,000 carried over from
last year and $50,000 added to this year’s number. At the end of fiscal year 2007 we will have
$250,000 in the fund.
Mr.
Rosenof asked can we use it for capital we spend this year?
Mr.
Petty responded yes we can. If an issue
happens in the next three months you wish to address, you can. You can also do it in the next budget year at
your discretion. We did not want to
deplete your reserve fund completely in addressing hurricane clean up. This is why we went to the short term note
and left some money in here.
Mr.
Rosenof asked can we tap into the fund if we have another hurricane next year?
Mr.
Petty responded yes sir. This is why we
left it there.
Mr.
Rosenof stated it will ultimately expedite clean up.
Mr.
Petty stated part of our discussion with Mr. Brewer at the last meeting was the
issue of whether we spend all the reserves on one hurricane clean up and leave
the District exposed.
Mr.
Rosenof stated it is a prudent thing to do.
I agree. We learn from our own
mistakes.
Mr.
Petty stated we are trying to learn by spending the other guy’s money first and
keeping ours in reserve. By the other
guy I mean the commercial paper we will use instead of depleting our reserves
and then finding trouble with a commercial bank in trying to obtain funds
because we have no reserve.
Ms.
Ribotsky asked is there a methodology on what the correct level of reserve is
in percentage of total budget, capital budget, forecast of what the worst case
scenario can be?
Mr.
Petty responded the $500,000 we have been knocking around and is our current
target has been mutually approved from staff recommendations and Board
consideration. It hits everything we
have seen. We had $450,000 in the fund
at the beginning of the year. Our
projected construction cost for clean up is somewhere between $500,000 and
$600,000. We think your current
contingency level, plus a financing program, puts you in good stead to handle
future concerns and hurricane issues if you can keep $500,000. From what we have seen this year, and the cost
increases we are looking at, we have not recommended you put the fund back to
$500,000 in one year. We are asking you
to look at it over multiple years because we are taking a big hit on assessments. When it hits the pocketbook it is not a great
deal of money. You are talking about an
increase of less than eight dollars a month.
Mr.
Rosenof stated as long as I have been on this Board the consensus has been to
try to keep this as lean as we can.
Mr.
Petty stated we did not go crazy. We hit
the middle of the road. We are using our
financing capability to fund for five years in order to keep us from doing
higher assessments to the homeowners. We
only want to go up gradually if necessary.
Mr.
Rosenof stated hopefully we will have a couple of years with no storms and the
reserve will go nicely.
Mr.
Petty stated the assessments are projected to be $145.90 per unit.
Mr.
Rosenof stated remind me of a unit again.
Mr.
Petty stated it is per acre.
Mr.
Rosenof asked is Ms. Ribotsky going to get a fraction of it?
Mr.
Petty responded yes.
Mr.
Rosenof stated I have 1.08 acres so I will multiply it by $145.90.
Mr.
Petty stated yes.
Mr.
Rosenof asked has the number of assessable acres changed?
Mr.
Petty responded the property appraiser is the keeper of the flame there. We have to use their roll as the official record. The only way acreage can change is if it is
declared by the property appraiser as inaccessible.
Mr.
Rosenof stated every year we have a slight deviation on the assessable acres,
but this year we have not.
Mr.
Petty stated this is the proposed budget.
We have not gone to actual yet.
We will update it before we do the roll.
Mr.
Doody stated Resolution 2006-4 is a resolution of the PTWCD relating to the
annual appropriations of the District and adopting the budget for the fiscal
year beginning October 1, 2006, and ending September 30, 2007, and referencing
the maintenance and benefit special assessments to be levied by the District
for said fiscal year.
Mr.
Rosenof stated I open the public hearing.
Are there any comments from the public regarding the proposed budget? There being no comments from the public, we
will close the comments from the public.
Are there any comments from the Board?
There
not being any,
On MOTION by Ms. Ribotsky seconded by Mr. Brewer with all in
favor Resolution 2006-4 adopting the budget for fiscal year 2007 was adopted.
Mr.
Petty stated there is one more resolution associated with the budget we would
like you to consider at this time.
Mr.
Rosenof asked what is it?
Mr.
Petty responded the setting of the ad valorem rate. Resolution 2006-5 is a resolution levying and
imposing a non ad valorem maintenance special assessment for the PTWCD for
fiscal year 2007.
Mr. Brewer MOVED to adopt Resolution 2006-5 levying and
imposing a non ad valorem assessment for fiscal year 2007 and Ms. Bertolami
seconded the motion.
Mr.
Rosenof stated there is a blank in the resolution. Do we need to address the blank?
Mr.
Petty responded we can. The resolution
is referring to the assessment, which is on the budget, in the amount of $296,289.
Mr.
Rosenof asked is there a blank for the unit number as well?
Mr.
Petty responded there is not a per unit reference in the resolution. They are asking for the general fund and the
debt service fund. We have no debt
service fund. The second blank will be
zero. The first blank is $296,289. We will fill them in.
On VOICE vote with all in favor the motion as previously
outlined was approved.
FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Discussion of
Management Services
Mr. Petty stated this is scheduled by the Board in
consideration of your ongoing review of management services. This is for discussion purposes. I do not know if you have any specific
actions.
Ms.
Ribotsky stated out of the five presenters I found two of them to be viable
candidates. Three of them did not show
any special attention to demonstrate the desire to want the business. One is Severn Trent Services and the other is
Wrathell, Hart, Hunt & Associates. I
do not feel I can pick one or the other at the moment, but I think it is worth
bringing each firm back to discuss any further detailed questions we have. We have a new adopted budget and we might
have more questions. I do not feel
comfortable picking one based on the presentations.
Mr.
Rosenof stated let us break this down.
Do you all agree we have two viable firms?
Ms.
Bertolami responded those were the two top I ranked as well. I did not find the other three approvable.
Mr.
Brewer stated we need to make sure we will be with a management company who
will be able to live and die by the budget.
We just talked about sharing employees and staff with the existing
management company we have.
Mr.
Rosenof stated that is a good point. We
cannot stop the budget process.
Mr.
Petty stated we have been able to provide economies of scale because of our
relationship with the Districts in your area.
If you do not choose us, those will not be available, but we will work
with you on a transition so you will have time to address any such impacts.
Mr.
Rosenof stated I appreciate it. Let me
ask Mr. Doody a question. Did we ever
come to the conclusion we have a written contract with Severn Trent Services?
Mr.
Doody responded no sir.
Mr.
Rosenof stated one of the things I would like to do, whether we stay with
Severn Trent Services or not, is have a written agreement. The written agreement will have to be a basis
for negotiation in future management as well.
I would like to see if you can generate a model used on other
districts.
Mr.
Petty stated we have a copy of an agreement between PTWCD and Severn Trent
Services. It has been executed on our
part. It has not been executed by
counsel, which is why he has not seen it.
It may be it had not been processed at the time. I can tell you what our intent was back in
the day.
Mr.
Rosenof asked what is the date on it?
Mr.
Petty responded it is 1997. It is on a
yearly renewal. It has the signature of
the Chair at the time, but I do not see counsel’s signature on it. We will have Mr. Doody redo it.
Ms.
Ribotsky stated Wrathell, Hart, Hunt & Associates fee appeared to be $37,500.
The binder you gave did not have a proposed fee, but in the budget it
appears to be $31,606. Can you confirm
if you charge a fee for preparation of and attendance at Board meetings,
notices, agendas and minutes?
Mr.
Petty responded it is included.
Ms.
Ribotsky asked what about maintenance and retention of districts, records
including all Board meeting minutes, policies, contracts and all other
documents?
Mr.
Petty responded it is $2,500. It is the
new item, document management, you are being billed for.
Ms.
Ribotsky stated it is not apples to apples.
What about bookkeeping, payroll, bill payment, coordination with
independent vendors and other accounting services?
Mr.
Petty responded it is included. The only
other item we add to it is technology sharing, which has the accounting
software and IT in it.
Ms.
Ribotsky asked how much is it?
Mr.
Petty responded it is $2,500.
Ms.
Bertolami stated another $2,500.
Mr.
Petty stated she was talking about cost to cost. She will not be able to have it from CSID if
they split from us because they only have advantage of it through us.
Ms.
Ribotsky stated you have to add the two items you mentioned.
Mr.
Petty stated do not forget you will have to add $17,700 to their fee.
Ms.
Ribotsky asked what for?
Mr.
Petty responded for your human resources, Ms. Walker in financing and Mr. Daly
for IT maintenance as well as customer service.
It will not continue if you pick Wrathell, Hart, Hunt & Associates.
Ms.
Ribotsky stated these are some of the questions we need to discuss and resolve
before we bring this forward. It is
relevant to have both firms come back.
Mr.
Rosenof stated I agree. There is a great
deal of detail we can question people on.
The big picture I am trying to narrow it down to is if we all agree
there are two viable firms. We said
yes. The next question is where we go
from there. We need Mr. Doody to review
the agreement in place to make sure it is a model for either Severn Trent
Services or the new firm if we decide to switch. The next question from there is if the new
firm can live within the contract. I
cannot imagine any of these guys will do it much cheaper or much more expensive
than the other. Do you feel we should
send letters to the other firms letting them know they are not being
considered?
There
was Board consensus to send a letter to the firms notifying them they are not
being considered.
Mr.
Rosenof asked can you take care of it?
Mr.
Doody responded yes.
Mr.
Petty stated I suggest you send out the results you ranked two firms as your
top contenders and the next three as being at the bottom. This way you will have options.
Mr.
Rosenof asked do you want to sign it or do you want my signature?
Mr.
Doody responded whatever you prefer. I
can prepare it and send it to you.
Mr.
Rosenof stated put it on your letterhead.
Send me the package, I will sign it and send it out.
Mr.
Doody stated you cannot sign on my letterhead.
Mr.
Rosenof stated send it out with your signature.
Mr.
Doody stated I will invite the two firms you determined tonight to be present at
the August meeting.
Mr.
Rosenof stated send a letter to the two firms as a formality telling them they
have been chosen for further consideration.
Mr.
Brewer stated I do not see a reason to bring them here in August until we tell
them what we want to know. We need to
give something to come back to us with.
He needs to come back to us with another proposal financially.
Mr.
Rosenof stated you cannot have a financial proposal until you understand the
contract and you understand the needs.
Finances are last, once you work out all of the other details.
Mr.
Doody stated the meeting will be set up where you have the opportunity to
entertain discussion with them in August to make your selection in September or
you can do it all in September. The idea
was to have them on Board for the beginning of the fiscal year in October.
Mr.
Rosenof stated if we are going to switch, we have to do it for the fiscal
year.
Mr.
Petty stated you do not have to do it by
Ms.
Ribotsky stated I appreciate those comments, but what struck me about this firm
versus any other firm is they understood the way the District operated more
than I expected.
Mr.
Rosenof asked what is the Board’s opinion of how to move forward?
Mr.
Brewer responded bring them back in August so we can interview them and tell
them what we expect. They have to answer
more questions.
Mr.
Rosenof asked do you want to prepare the questions now?
Mr.
Brewer responded I can sit down and write some down to bring with me to the
meeting. I am more concerned about who
is going to work for us.
Ms.
Ribotsky stated I am okay with coming prepared with questions.
Ms.
Bertolami stated I am going to be out of town.
Mr.
Rosenof stated we are going to review the contract. We will send out “Dear John” letters. We are going to do acceptance letters to the
two successful proposers.
Mr.
Doody stated we will ask them to be here.
Mr.
Rosenof stated those are the only action items for today.
Mr.
Doody stated if you are out of town, you can attend by phone. You cannot be considered part of the quorum.
Mr.
Rosenof asked can she vote?
Mr.
Doody responded she can vote, but she cannot be considered part of the quorum.
Mr.
Rosenof stated we need at least three people present.
FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Manager’s Report
A. Meeting
Schedule for Fiscal Year 2007
Mr.
Rosenof stated we talked about having all of our meetings in
Mr.
Petty responded any conflicts, which come up throughout the year we can take
care of. We are asking you to approve
this because it is more economical to put one advertisement out.
There
was Board consensus to approve the meeting schedule for fiscal year 2007 and to
hold all meetings at the
B. Audit
Committee Selection Process
i. Appointment of Committee Members
ii. Establishment of RFP Evaluation Criteria
iii. Authorization to Proceed with RFP
Mr. Petty stated we would like to pull this from the agenda
at this time.
Mr.
Rosenof stated that is fine.
SIXTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS Attorney’s
Report – Consideration of Award of Contract for Canal Clean Up
Mr.
Doody stated at the last meeting Mr. McKune made a presentation to the effect
that four bids were received for the proposed hurricane debris removal canal
bank restoration project. A protest was
made by one of the bidders. I was asked
to review the process. Since the last
meeting I had the opportunity to consult with the District Manager. We have a collective recommendation. Given the review of the bid protest, it is in
the best interest of the District to re-bid this project. I understand there is consideration with
respect to timing for removal of the debris.
Part of the component of the project is the funds available from the
federal agency. While I filed the
paperwork with the county to transfer the title from
Ms.
Ribotsky stated there are two issues. It
is not only the bid protest, but also the question of the claim title to do the
work.
Mr.
Doody stated I am addressing the bid protest.
Even if you were to award a bid, the funding is still not available
because we are in the process of transferring title from the county to the
District.
Mr.
Rosenof asked at what point does it need to be complete?
Mr.
Petty responded the contract awarding the work specifying the type of
construction, which must be undertaken on each item, is filled out before you
award the contract. That is where we are
looking to sign the agreement with NRCS.
We have done everything within our power to maintain the open door with
the agency. We are hanging on by our
fingernails, but we are still on their list.
There are a couple of issues. The
Board has not given direction on whether or not we are going to do the work
because we have so many matters up in the air.
One is the NRCS contract and whether or not we have a clear title to
sign the agreement with them to be eligible for up to 75% of the funding. We wish to do it for due diligence to our
residents.
Mr.
Rosenof stated you have debt service to the budget. How much of the project are you showing in
the budget?
Mr.
Petty responded 100%.
Mr.
Rosenof asked if we ignored NRCS, can we still do the job?
Mr.
Petty responded that is the direction the Board put me in after discussions at
prior meetings.
Mr.
Rosenof stated I do not want to wait anymore.
I hope the public will understand an additional $40 a year to make sure
they do not get flooded.
Mr.
Petty stated trying to get federal assistance takes us into a timing
issue. We are in the middle of hurricane
season.
Mr.
Rosenof stated it will be the icing on the cake if we can get it, but it is
more important to keep our residents safe.
Ms.
Ribotsky asked will there be an additional assessment to the regular assessment
of $145.90?
Mr.
Rosenof responded no. It is included.
Mr.
Petty stated we are projecting the cost to the District at $600,000. You have money in your reserve in case we are
off by $10,000 or $20,000. We can cover
those types of contingencies. The re-bid
will tell us what the real numbers are, but $600,000 will cover both bids we
received the last time. Our corrective
language is not expected to raise the bid significantly.
Mr.
Ribotsky asked is it fair to say if we get money from NRCS, next year’s
assessment can be significantly lower?
Mr.
Petty responded I do not expect it. We
currently plan and accept $500,000 as a reasonable reserve. What you see in the proposed budget is a
reserve of approximately $250,000, which will be available at the end of the
year.
Ms.
Ribotsky asked will you use the money to fund the reserve in advance?
Mr.
Petty responded yes. It is our first
recommendation as your manager to fill the reserve before you take back
assessment levels.
Mr.
Rosenof stated I believe our position is we prefer to do the project now and risk
not being reimbursed than wait any longer at the risk of having a catastrophe
should another storm hit us this year.
Mr.
Doody stated if you want to proceed to award the bid, it is an option
available. I want to advise you of the
statutes of the law on the record addressing major and minor deviations and
have you make a determination.
Mr.
Rosenof asked on the first issue regarding our clear title to the land, which
we will fix, do you believe, from a logistic point of view, they can be worked
out?
Mr.
Doody responded yes sir.
Mr.
Rosenof asked can we do the work legally?
Mr.
Doody responded yes sir. I believe you
can.
Mr.
Rosenof stated we can figure a legal way to do the work.
Mr.
Doody stated yes sir.
Mr.
Petty stated let me clarify it will be flow way work, removal of trees over the
water, but no bank work.
Mr.
Rosenof stated please address the irregularity issue.
Mr.
Doody stated you have a bidder who has provided a written protest to the
District raising issues with respect to one of the bidder’s response. If you are not inclined to re-bid it, within legal
context it is my recommendation you revisit the issues and clarify them through
a rewording of the bid package.
Mr.
Rosenof stated it will delay us approximately 30 to 60 days.
Mr.
Petty stated approximately 30 days. We
will be able to bring it back to you for award at the next meeting. Because you are making the determination to
go ahead regardless of the funding source it gives us ample time. It does not put us back too far. We hope both companies participate in the
bid. We have worked with them in other
agencies and have respected both companies.
They have done good work.
Mr.
Rosenof asked who are the companies?
Mr.
Petty responded Stiles Landscape Company and Arbor Tree & Land, Inc.
Mr.
Rosenof asked is Stiles Landscape Company the low bidder?
Mr.
Petty responded yes with Arbor Tree & Land being a close second. We have worked with both.
Mr.
Rosenof asked is there not enough work to keep Arbor Tree & Land, Inc.
happy without them wanting to sue us.
Mr.
Petty responded do not ask me this question.
Mr.
Doody stated I want to make sure the record identifies under Section 1.18 of
the bid package, subsection A says, “until final award of contract, the owner
reserves the right to reject any and all bids, with or without cause.” It is within your legal authority to reject
the bids as tendered.
Mr.
Rosenof stated we may have to defend a challenge.
Mr.
Doody stated if you award the bid, you run the risk of having one of two bidders
challenge.
Mr.
Rosenof stated we will have to pay you to defend these challenges.
Ms.
Yarbrough stated I am with the law firm of Tripp Scott and with me is Mr.
Knight from Stiles Landscape Company. I
want to continue reading the paragraph Mr. Doody read to you authorizing the
owner to waive any informality or irregularity with respect to the bid or
accept the bid which is in the best interest of the owner. “With regard to any protest of irregularity,
the owner has reserved the right to waive those irregularities or informalities
in the bid package as well.” If there
are irregularities, you have the power to waive them.
Mr.
Rosenof stated it is understood. Do you
consider this an irregularity or a material breach of the bid package? I have not heard what the objection is.
Mr.
Doody responded this is the determination I asked you to make as the governing
body.
Mr.
Rosenof asked is it not our counsel’s job to make the determination?
Mr.
Doody responded based on my examination, my recommendation is you re-bid. There are deviations warranting re-bidding.
Mr.
Rosenof stated this is you talking as an attorney. If it was your house, would you want to
re-bid it?
Mr.
Doody responded I represent the District.
I am here in the sole capacity of that as counsel.
Mr.
Rosenof asked does anyone else in the public have comments on this issue?
Ms.
Yarbrough responded there is a $110,000 difference between the lowest bidder
and the second lowest bidder. With
regard to the owner or the District deciding what is in the best interest and
waiving irregularities, there is a substantial difference.
Mr.
Rosenof asked what are irregularities?
Mr.
Doody responded I am addressing the memorandum provided to Mr. Petty by Mr.
McKune on
The
second issue was a list of equipment which will be used to complete the project
must include adequate barges and vessels normally engaged in work of similar
nature. According to Arbor Tree & Land,
Inc. adequate equipment has not been established. The response from Mr. McKune is Stiles
Landscape Company’s bid package included a list of equipment to be used for the
project, which included a barge as well as an array of other equipment. In recent conversations with Stiles Landscape
Company they advised us they do not currently own the barge, but they plan to
purchase one for this project.
The
third objection was a minimum of one waterway/debris removal project completed
by the firm submitting the bid within the last three years for a governmental
agency which at a minimum must approximate the amount of contractors bid for
this project. Arbor Tree & Land,
Inc. stated waterway experience has not been identified within the last three
years. The response from Mr. McKune is
Stiles Landscape Company has a bid project submittal listing one recently
completed project for Jacaranda Golf Course with an estimated contract amount
of $500,000. The project is a private
project and not a governmental agency.
The qualification of bidders asks for submittal of a bid within the last
three years for a governmental agency.
There is a concern from a legal standpoint as to whether or not you want
to consider these major or minor deviations.
Mr.
Rosenof asked is it your recommendation we relieve these requirements when re-bidding?
Mr.
Doody responded I will work with Mr. Petty and Mr. McKune to see what we can do
to ensure the District gets the project completed and does not incur
liabilities.
Mr.
Rosenof asked my fear is, with Stiles Landscape Company sitting in the room, if
I knew the next lowest bidder was $150,000 higher, what will I do when I
re-bid? I am going to raise my
price. Knowing Stiles Landscape Company
the way I do, I assume they will do it.
We have to weigh the cost of a potential challenge versus the cost of a
potential $150,000 amount we can leave at the table.
Ms.
Yarbrough stated with regard to the four protests, three of them are
credentials which have been provided to the District since then. They are not credentials created subsequent
to the bid package. If you are talking
about whether it is material or immaterial, you know they are credentials. We gave you the references, which have been
checked out. The only other one dealing
with the substance of the project is the equipment. CH2M Hill reviewed it and felt as though the
equipment was sufficient.
Ms.
Ribotsky stated your assessment is correct.
There is no way we can get close to $150,000 in litigation.
Mr.
Craven stated the biggest problem you face with the potential of a challenge or
litigation is not buying extra time.
Mr.
Rosenof asked can they stop the project?
Mr.
Craven responded I would think so.
Mr.
Doody stated the reason they will stop is an injunction.
Mr.
Rosenof asked will a judge grant an injunction against a governmental agency
trying to protect its residents? It will
be an unpopular decision.
Mr.
Craven responded it is your biggest problem.
Once you get into a court situation you loose control.
Mr.
Rosenof asked do you feel a contractor, which gets a great deal of its work
from districts like ours, will take this action? Do you feel they will think twice before
taking action against this District?
Mr.
Petty responded I consider it a risk to the District and recommend it be
re-bid. We would like to have the opportunity
to have both firms compete on a fair ground addressing these technical issues
to the benefit of the District. We are
not trying to cut out either one. We are
trying to do what is most timely, which is to re-bid and get it back to you at
the next meeting.
Mr.
Rosenof asked can we just ask them to re-bid and keep Stiles Landscape
Company’s bid?
Mr.
Petty responded no.
Ms.
Ribotsky asked what are the chances of getting things straight with the NRCS
within the next month?
Mr.
Doody responded when the county commission gets back from their recesses, the
resolution will hopefully be approved which will convey the title to the
county.
Mr.
Rosenof asked are you saying waiting 30 days to do anything for our
reimbursements?
Mr.
Doody responded that is correct.
Mr.
Rosenof stated I can boil this down to a potential loss of money on the table
versus a possible injunction.
Mr.
Petty stated I believe 30 days of not doing work may put us in a position of
getting a favorable application signed once we do have approval of having more
work qualify.
Mr.
Rosenof stated I do not understand what you said.
Mr.
Petty stated I want to ask Mr. McKune.
Anything we do outside of the contract will probably not be
reimbursed. If we do 30% of the job
before we get title and we get the NRCS agreement signed, we will not get
compensated for it. The 30 day wait may
be well spent in saving money to the District because we may get more money
from federal assistance.
Mr.
Rosenof stated it is either the potential loss of $150,000 on the table versus
a potential challenge. It is basically
where we are. Which risk do we want to
take?
Mr.
Petty stated I do not know you will leave $150,000 on the table. The money on the table is unknown. You have two bidders. One may come down now that he has seen the
competition, while the other seeing what the other charged may go up. Hopefully they will look at their actual cost
and give us the best price they can understanding the business.
Ms.
Ribotsky asked is there anyway to settle with the second bidder or offer them
another type of work in place of this to potentially stop them from protesting?
Mr.
Doody responded no. I do not advise you
to.
Mr. Brewer MOVED to re-bid the canal clean up and Ms.
Ribotsky seconded the motion.
Mr.
Brewer asked is there anyone from the public who wants to comment on this?
Ms.
Yarbrough responded Stiles Landscape Company feels re-bidding will create an
unfair process. You already have a good
deal with $110,000 less than the second bidder.
You are opening up to another bidder to try to underbid after he has had
the opportunity to review the bids.
Mr.
Rosenof asked are you saying you will file a protest if we re-bid it?
Ms.
Yarbrough responded perhaps.
Mr.
Knight stated CH2M Hill has visited our project in
Ms.
Ribotsky stated there is an unknown in terms of what might happen in the next
30 days as to increasing the scope of work we are trying to get accomplished
and putting a fine edge around as opposed to what can potentially happen in
terms of companies being so busy they do not want to bid. I withdraw my second to Mr. Brewer’s motion.
Ms. Ribotsky MOVED to award the contract
for canal clean up to Stiles Landscape Company.
Mr.
Rosenof asked what changed your mind?
Ms.
Ribotsky responded there is a risk in awarding everything. Based on the risks of increasing the costs,
things can come down and be more damaging to the residents. If there is a protest, I do not want to say
people make idle threats, it is a serious legal issue. From a business perspective, with the amount
of tree work out there, I do not know how much energy their company is going to
want to spend pursuing this through litigation versus spending their resources
to get more work. I am willing to take
the risk for the sake of getting the work completed faster and controlling the
costs, running the risk it can go more than $115,000.
Mr.
Rosenof asked does the first motion die?
Mr.
Petty responded yes, due to lack of a second.
Mr.
Rosenof stated we are looking for a second to Ms. Ribotsky’s motion.
Ms. Bertolami seconded the MOTION as
previously outlined.